Running For the Tall Grass

July 15, 2004 | Rick J. Radecki

[DesertGOP]

On the heels of a recent procedural vote defeat for a federal amendment recognizing marriage exclusively between a man and a woman, we’ve all had the privilege of being tutored over and over again by many of our illustrious senators on Capitol Hill. They say that the legal status of same-sex marriage should be left up to the states to decide.

At first consideration, one would have to agree with such a premise. However, after closer examination of such admonition, one might also get the impression that this type of rhetorical knee-jerk response is nothing less than a political smoke screen to hide a more clandestine intent to appear politically correct simultaneously on both sides of the federal marriage amendment debate.

Those U.S. Senators who “want their cake and eat it, too,” are hoping that the icing of their election-year double-speak doesn’t fall off and expose them for the frauds that they really are. On one hand, they’ll tell you they’re for protecting traditional marriage; on the other hand, they say that the federal government shouldn’t mandate what marriage is in the first place.

What’s most disturbing, though, is how those senators who ran as conservatives—-claiming to champion traditional family values—-are the same ones running for the tall grass of ideological neutrality.

I call it a disease of the "but-crowd"-—that is, they will say, “I support marriage only between a man and a woman, but…” Then they proceed to enlighten us with their wisdom by stressing that the fate of same-sex marriage is something that each respective state and its residents should decide for themselves, not some faceless entity like Big Brother in Washington, D.C.

Uh, excuse me, but I think that’s what the Constitutional ratification process is all about.

Here’s a novel idea that just might send the issue to the states, after all: Propose a federal marriage amendment to the states by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress; have each state’s legislature vote on it; then, let the chips fall where they may and tally up whether or not the amendment has garnered the necessary three-fourths support from the state legislatures (38) in total.

This would be, without a doubt, a long and arduous lesson in civic government. And, the success rate of an amendment to become part of the Constitution is less than 1%-- certainly, not the best of odds.

But, if those on Capitol Hill who, in their ivory towers, are clamoring for the matter of same-sex marriage to be a state, not a federal, debate, then why not allow we (i.e., the people) decide once and for all just what marriage is and allow for some semblance of uniformity across state lines, as well.

The time limit for the ratification process is seven years. At that rate, our supposedly pro-traditional marriage senators in Washington may beat the deadline. At least that should allow plenty of opportunity for those who ran for the tall grass this first time around to somehow find their way back and face their constituents head on.

[DesertGOP]

After "discussing" with California Senator Diane Feinstein's office the other day the matter of same-sex marriage and whether it was a state versus a federal issue, I was compelled to put my humble thoughts about the whole topic down on paper and shoot them off to two local newspaper editors in the Southern Cal' area.

I'm no expert, now, when it comes to Constutional law--or even the ratification process, for that matter--but it seems to be just another instance of politics trumping principle one more time on Capitol Hill.

Thanks,

Rick J. Radecki Victorville, CA

[3AngelaD]

Trouble is, the Constitution is being amended, not by elected representatives of the people, but by unelected, unaccountable, activist courts with a radical, and, in the long-run, civilization-destroying agenda.

[DesertGOP]

You're right!

Though these sort of "black-robed activists" (to borrow a phrase) aren't technically amending the Constitution, in their own sneaky way they're certainly altering it in a way that most Americans seem oblivious to (with the exception, of course, of those good folks who check in at FreeRepublic on a regular basis).

Thanks for your opine! (as O'Reilly likes to quip)

Rick J. Radecki